Judge: Michael Small, Case: 20STCP01877, Date: 2024-05-21 Tentative Ruling

Inform the clerk if you submit on the tentative ruling. If moving and opposing parties submit, no appearance is necessary.

Case Number: 20STCP01877    Hearing Date: May 21, 2024    Dept: 57

The Court is denying Defendant Randy Thomas’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Andrew Keiller’s complaint, which seeks recognition and enforcement in this Court of a default judgment that Keiller obtained against Thomas in an Australian court. 

Keiller passed away after Thomas filed his summary judgment.  Keiller’s widow Louise Tanish substituted in for Keiller as the Plaintiff in the case.  

California courts “shall recognize a foreign-country judgment” (Code of Civil Procedure Section 1716(a)), unless, inter alia, “[t]he foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.”  (Section 1716(b)(2).)   In turn, “a foreign court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant if [inter alia] [t]he foreign court lacks a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction that would be sufficient according to the standards governing personal jurisdiction in [California].”  (Section 1717(a)(2).)   

There are two ways in which a California court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant.  The first is general jurisdiction, which applies to any and all claims brought against a defendant in California if California is the defendant’s place of domicile.  (Preciado v. Freightliner Custom Chassis Corp.  (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 964, 976.)  The second is specific jurisdiction, which applies when the defendant has purposefully availed itself of the benefits of conducting activities in California and the claim against the defendant arises from those contacts with California.  (Id. at p. 977.)  A defendant purposefully avails itself of the benefits of conducting activities in California when the defendant “deliberately reached out” to California by, inter alia, “entering into a contractual relationship centered” here.   (Ibid., citation omitted.)  Because this case involves whether the Australian court had jurisdiction under either of these two standards for personal jurisdiction to enter default judgment against Defendant, Australia must be substituted for California as the forum in applying the standards here.   

It is undisputed that general jurisdiction provides no basis for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Thomas in Australia because he is not domiciled there.   

As to specific jurisdiction, Thomas contends in his summary judgment motion that this method of obtaining personal jurisdiction over him in Australia is inapplicable as well because, according to Thomas, the undisputed evidence shows that he did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits of conducting activities in Australia. 

The Court disagrees. Tanish has presented evidence in the form of her declaration in opposition to Thomas’s motion that (1) Thomas purposefully availed himself of the benefits of conducting activities in Australia by reaching out and travelling to Australia where he met and stayed with Keiller, who was a resident of Australia, to discuss the parties’ business relationship and contractual arrangements for the sale by Thomas in California of a special vehicle that Keiller built in Australia, and for payment by Thomas to Keiller in Australia of a portion of the proceeds of the sale of the vehicle, and (2) Keiller’s claim against Thomas arises from Thomas’s contacts with Keiller in Australia.  Tanish’s evidence creates a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the parties’ contractual arrangements were centered in Australia.  The evidence is sufficient to defeat Thomas’s motion for summary judgment.  The authorities that Thomas cited in his supplemental brief do not compel a different outcome.  The factual record in each of those cases is distinguishable from the factual record before the Court in connection with Thomas’s summary judgment motion.